Reg readers in the dark over extreme porn
Local police clueless too
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
A Register reader has been left baffled by the reaction of her local police force when they were asked what exactly is likely to constitute an actionable image when the extreme porn laws come into force in January.
Although the Ministry of Justice has issued its own guidelines the message has yet to filter down to local forces. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act comes into force in late January.
A Reg reader, who asked to remain anonymous, sent an email to Sussex Police seeking guidance.
She wrote:
The law concerns images and, in hopes of gaining some guidance, I would be grateful if you could examine a picture and give me your thoughts as to whether you would officially consider it to be an actionable image. I believe it is a borderline image which rests the suffocation element of the guidance.The image concerned in this case, is one recently created by a photographer in the US and posted on his blog, so the actual image is not permanently kept in this country. I would be grateful for your guidance...
http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/_jm16327.jpg"
The initial response was that she should refer the matter to the Internet Watch Foundation.
When she wrote back clarifying her question Sussex Police contact centre referred her to the Ministry of Justice.
She replied:
The Police Forces have received guidance on this law and it is now in the Police juristiction to provide the advice to people which is necessary in order to people to be able to judge whether images are within the boundary of the guidance in the window of time that the MoJ have provided before the law becomes actionable at the end of January.Please provide the advice I have requested when possible. If you have to refer to the MoJ for further advice, please do so.
It will look extremely bad if the MoJ's promises are not kept and the advice which it has sought to enable the public to comply with this law, is not available.
Sussex Police said they were unable to answer her question last week but had passed it onto a local Police Sergeant.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the new law will only catch material which would already be illegal under the Obscene Publications Act of 1959 but would introduce a criminal offence punishable by up to three years in prison.
The spokesman said: "Material covered includes necrophilia, bestiality and violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals.
"If you believe you have come across illegal pornographic material on a website then it should be reported to the Internet Watch Foundation www.IWF.org.uk to whom reports about potentially obscene material can already be sent. The IWF can determine whether or not that website is hosted in the UK, and whether or not it is potentially showing material in breach of UK legislation."
There is a more detailed Register look at the guidelines here. ®
COMMENTS
*Internet* watch foundataion
so if I submitted the same pic on a pice of paper would they still refur me to the IWF??? that would be fun
Irrelevant
"The IWF can determine whether or not that website is hosted in the UK, and whether or not it is potentially showing material in breach of UK legislation."
Sorry, that is no help at all. If a WEBSITE is in breach of the law for showing certain things it can be taken down. If I mistakenly believe that it is not against the law, or it would indeed have been taken down, and view the site, I go to jail.
It is ridiculous that:
a) the law is so vague and subjective
b) the police clearly have clearly not been given adequate guidance
c) the public can see the law is vague and are ASKING for guidance but not getting it.
Makes me wonder if the whole point is to induce fear and make people behave through fear. As an earlier poster said, it is an extreme punishment in itself to be taken to court, even if acquitted because we get the "well he must be guilty or they wouldn't have arrested him/nothing to hide" brigade swinging into play.
Of course, even if acquitted, DNA is taken on arrest and the arrest will come up in subsequent CRB checks which are needed more and more in order to hold most types of jobs these days.
So a vague law hurts us all. Anyone mistakenly picked up will suffer potential job loss and be unable to continue their careers. All this to prove what most people with an ounce of sense could see, and did in fact warn the government about before the law was passed. So "lessons will be learned", even though we already knew. They will "listen" and change - what a waste of money and lives. Why not listen BEFORE passing a criminally vague law?
It all seems a little extreme to me. And before anyone starts banging on about protecting the children - this is about free adults not children. There are laws to protect children already.
Scarey "thought police" crap
Here's hoping someone goes to the high courts and challenges this ridiculous and abusive legislation.
Even the OPA is dodgey, IMHO. How can someone else tell me "that is obscene"?
If they mean "everyone would find that obscene" then they are obviously plain wrong.
If they mean "most people would find that obscene" then who says so and where are the exhaustive studies to support them?
If they mean "some people would find that obscene" then I'll introduce them to quite a few citizens that find women showing more than their naked eyes obscene, so nearly every image in every publication in the land must be illegal.
NuLab REALLY need to cut back on their political law-making - they make themselves look stupid in so many ways these days - they don't need this as well and nor do we.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
